The Fault The Guilt of Most Arab Muslims

Not every single Arab is a born racist [admire courageous Arabs that stand up against it, such as many Arab Christians] nor is every single Muslim an Islamofacsist Jihadist [salute the few brave that speak up]. However, due to their current twisted upbringing the racism in the Arab world & Jihad or Jihad-apologetics are a problem in their mainstream not just in the fringes or merely "pockets" of "extremists".
Hence: Arab Racism & Islamic Jihad is The 'Guilt of Most Arab Muslims'.

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Islam on Trial: The Prosecution’s Case against Islam

September 11, 2001 changed the world. Islamic terroristshijacked American airplanes; flew them into several, major,symbolic buildings of hers; causing thousands to fall, crash orburn to their early death. The terrorists who did it did not do itfor land or money: they did it fully, openly and proudly in thename of their religion, Islam, being promised 72 virgins. Itthrust unto us Middle Eastern politics, Islam, and a new enemy.Islam itself has come into the forefront of public debate - or atleast it should have.

The majority of us have at least a crude knowledge of Islamand what Islamic countries are like. We know they live in abjectpoverty. We know their progress is slim to none. We know many ofthem treat their dogs better than women. We know they defy justabout all Western ideals.

One would think that, especially after September 11, 2001, therewould be criticism of Islam coming from every which way. Feminists,Christians, capitalists, secularists, human rights activists, helleven animal rights activists should have something to say aboutIslam. We are, after all, a country with free speech, aren’t we?Yet, even after September 11, there has been nothing but hauntingsilence.

In the current state of the world, Muslims are involved in almostevery war or battle. It was Muslim terrorists who bombed a train inMadrid Spain; Muslim terrorists who held a school hostage in Russia,killing children; Muslim terrorists who flew planes into the WorldTrade Center. The past 1400 years of Islamic history has beenriddled with terrorism, from the days of Muhammad to Al-Zarqawi.

But, for whatever reason, Islam is above any kind of criticallook or debate. It is given an almost holy status. People don’t justavoid criticism of it; they are quick to defend it. Those whocriticize Islam are often banished to the Never Never Land ofpolitical suicide. The defenses given for Islam are so hysterical;you would think you just insulted their mothers or something.

Islam is not the problem, we keep getting told. The terrorists,they assure us, had the “wrong interpretation” of the Koran and arenot true Muslims.

We have watched Islamic terrorists behead innocent civilians. Wehave been told that this is completely and totally against Islam.

From the Koran:

"When thy Lord spake unto the angels, 'I will be with you:therefore stablish ye the faithful. I will cast a dread into thehearts of the infidels.' Strike off their heads then, and strike offfrom them every finger tip." - Sura 8:12 (Bold mine)

We have watched Islamic terrorists commit “jihad” against theWest. Under no circumstances, we are lectured, does the Koran tellits followers to attack nonbelievers.

From the Koran:

"Make war upon such of those to whom the Scriptures have beengiven as believe not in God, or in the last day, and who forbid notthat which God and His Apostle have forbidden, and who profess notthe profession of the truth, until they pay tribute out of hand, andthey be humbled." Sura 9:29

We know that the Islamic terrorists envision a world that isentirely Muslim. Surely this has nothing to do with the Islamreligion.

From the Koran:

“Say to the infidels: If they desist from their unbelief, what isnow past shall be forgiven them, but if they return to it, they havealready before them the doom of the ancients! Fight then againstthem till strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it God's.If they desist, verily God beholdeth what they do:" - Sura8:39-40

It is interesting the responses I usually get when I startquoting the Koran directly. When I start quoting the Koran, such asthe verses I previously quoted, the responses I get are usually:

That I must not be quoting from the Koran but another bookthat quotes the Koran, which must be wrong.

That Muslims believe some parts of the Koran were written bySatan. (And it must be these bad quotes that I gave them.)

That what I quoted to them was only one or two verses and Imust take into consideration the whole book. (Which I happilywill).

That the translation I am reading is wrong, and the originalKoran is much gentler and nicer.

It is really rather obvious: quoting what the Koran actually saysis too much for their ears. Shut if off: let them see and hear noevil.

Today, our unwillingness to identify the enemy today is so bad,we can’t even watch movies where the enemy is, heaven forbid,Islamic terrorists. Not only will we not create new fiction, wewon’t even report the facts. The bloody history of Islam iswhitewashed in regular history books and courses. In fact, the moreviolent Islam gets, it seems, the more excuses and protection itgets. If you ever notice, Islam was not called a “Religion of Peace”before 9/11. Then they kill 3000 people and get called a “Religionof Peace.”

Perhaps it should be our new slogan: Ignorance is Strength;Freedom is Slavery; Islam is Peace.

September 11, 2001 changed world politics forever. Theoppression, mass murder and terrorism that has marked the MiddleEast for 1400 years hurled itself unto Western society. Yet no oneis willing to identify the enemy - scared, not for fear of politicalpersecution or assassination but of becoming unpopular. Whensomething so obvious and so horrible becomes so wrong to talk about:that is when you know it’s time to talk about it.

Ladies and Gentleman, this is the prosecution’s case againstIslam. I am charging it with creating oppression, poverty, slavery,rape and terrorism.

The Case against Islam

When it comes to the connection between Islam and Islamicterrorism, it is our ability to reason - in this case the ability toread the Koran - that is so often under attack. Therefore, let usbegin by reviewing our fundamentals: our philosophical fundamentals.

When reading a book, the two fundamentals involved are what it isfor all of man’s interaction with reality: existence andconsciousness. Existence is what exists and consciousness isawareness of what exists. A person’s views on existence andconsciousness, which is their view on metaphysics and epistemology,is the foundation of their philosophical beliefs and will effectevery other aspect of their worldly views. Is existence firm andabsolute or an ever-moldable flux? Can human consciousnessunderstand existence or are humans doomed to be in a blind stupor,never able to understand the reality around them?

Please note that reason is the process by which man absorbssensory data and categorizes it in his mind as to understand it.Therefore reason is only possible if existence is absolute and man’sconsciousness is potent enough to understand existence. It is thephilosophy of objectivism that maintains that reality is what it isand man is capable of understanding it.

When reading a book, what exists is the text and the degree towhich you are conscious of what it says is the degree to which youfocus your mind on it. The purpose is to study the text so that youcan develop an understanding of it, i.e. discover its identity. Youdo not re-invent what you are reading or come to your own arbitraryconclusion regarding what the text says: your goal is to come to aclear, precise understanding of what the text means. The ability todo this is called reading comprehension.

You do not typically have an “interpretation” of a text.“Interpretations” are only necessary when some aspect of reality isconfusing, vague or hard to understand. For instance, an interpreteris needed to translate one language to another for people, as theforeign language is otherwise incomprehensible to those people.“Interpretations” therefore also imply that only a person with anadvanced or specialized knowledge can interpret something - it isnot open to a lay person. “Interpretations,” such as the“interpretation” of the law or the “interpretation” of someone’sbehavior are also generally regarded as only someone’s opinion -only quasi-based on fact - apt to be right or wrong.

It is revealing that those who discuss Islam always refer tohuman understanding of the Koran as a mere “interpretation.” Byidentifying human understanding of the Koran as an “interpretation,”it automatically establishes the text as fluid, subjective andmoldable - as an incomprehensible text that anyone can take anydifferent way.

There may perhaps be parts of the Koran that are confusing andcontradictory and indeed need an interpreter. But if so, one mustpoint out what text is confusing or contradictory and what thedifferent “interpretations” thereof might be, especially, giventheir claims, as it pertains to terrorism. This would open thedebate up to human reason. But those who defend Islam do not dothis: instead they typically make a broad, generic statement thatpeople make the “wrong interpretation” of the Koran. Broadstatements such as this are not indicative of a confusing orcontradictory text but of an assault on objectivity itself.

Notice this author’s defense of not being able to understand a“true Islam.” This is an article entitled, “What is Real Islam?” byM.A.Hussain from a website calledhumiliateamerica.com:

“It is impossible to tell what Islam is objectively and whatIslam is not. There are several problems of interpretation ofreligious scriptures which are insurmountable such that there cannotbe “real Islam” or real Christianity”. The interpretation ofreligious scripture whether by a nonbeliever or of any believer is asubjective process. The religious scriptures belong to history andhistory is nothing but a point of view. The "objective history" or"objective historical process" is not accessible whatevermethodology you adopt, you can never give an objective account ofhistory.” (Bold mine; incorrect punctuation and grammar theauthor’s.)

Not even history, according the author, is objectivelydeterminable. This is not just an attack on the ability tounderstand Islam but reality itself.

I propose that the arguments about the inability to interpret theKoran are not meant to emphasize the confusing nature of the Koranbut to exempt it from the Law of Identity. They want you to regardwhat is written in front of you in plain language as not being whatit is but that it can be anything at all. Up can mean down; blackcan be white; or any A can be any other non-A.

This same attack on objectivity does not just happen with theKoran; it has infiltrated all the major humanities, and even some ofthe hard sciences. For instance, indeed in history, the new breed ofhistorians (known as revisionists) will tell you that there is noobjective history; that it is (of course), “open to interpretation.”In political science, new supposed scholars tell us the Constitutionis more of a suggestion than a commandment, and, of course, “open tointerpretation.” (The Constitution was designed to be living butthis means it can be amended not re-“interpreted.”)

Why do they do this? So they can do the interpreting.

History, the Constitution, and reality get in the way of theirideologies. When reality gets in your way, doubt reality.

If you notice, despite the fact that these scholars believereality can never be objectively deciphered, they never becomeskeptics. One would think if reality is such a foggy haze thathumans can never objectively decipher, we would be forever unsureand doubtful of the world around us. Instead, such new scholarscharge right on, asserting absolute knowledge - “interpreting”history, law, reality for you.

Notice that with the Koran that they don’t become skeptics overwhat the “interpretation” of the Koran is. Even thoughinterpretations are generally regarded as not right or wrong, andthey insist the Koran is too “profound” to understand, they announcethat the terrorists most definitely had the “wrong interpretation.”The Koran is mostly incomprehensible, but apparently they have themagical ability to understand its true meaning and dictate it to us.

This is a game that has been being played for decades. Thisattack on objectivity stems from the root, from the philosophicallevel, from our ideas of existence and consciousness. The ideas thathave permeated academia for decades have been the notion thatreality isn’t real; that reason is impotent in understandingreality. This philosophical foundation was formalized into anofficial philosophical system by Immanuel Kant.

Kant attacked reason (and, therefore, reality) from the inside:by re-defining it. Allow me to re-emphasize the definitions of someterms. Reason is the process by which man absorbs sensory data anduses it to understand the world around him. It doesn’t matter howbig or small the knowledge is - from understanding what a “cat” or“dog” is, by using your own five senses and rational mind - tounderstanding any elaborate science. Logic is the method by whichman processes that knowledge, making accurate, or rathernon-contradictory, identifications of reality. (Forgive me for beingredundant; it is only for explanation purposes). Mysticism is todevelop a conclusion or understanding of the world through somenon-sensory means, such as a person who believes in God based onfaith.

Kant said that reason was “a priori,” that is to say “withoutexperience.” How can man have any knowledge, understanding orenlightenment while void of reality? Kant made the most offensiveattack on reason possible: smearing it by defining reason asmysticism, i.e. to develop knowledge with no sensory data, i.e. noevidence

This is why academic elites are unabashed in dismissing reality,history, and the obvious in front of your eyes in favor of theirbizarre ideologies. Attacking reality doesn’t seem awkward orillogical to them; it seems sophisticated - the very definition ofreason. Reality is an ever-changing and contradictory flux, apt tobe whatever they say it is. Everything is considered moldable today,from history to human nature itself. Kant laid the groundwork forfull-scale, institutionalized propaganda.

This is the same game being played with the Koran. It comesutterly natural to them to portray the Koran as being subjective,fluid, and totally incomprehensible; outside the realm of humanmind. They wield manipulation as effectively as a knight with asword.

There is one thing in the way of their schemes: your rationalmind. While thwarting everyone’s eyes away from the obvious, theirenemy is that one person who insists on facts and demands evidence.Therefore, they need to make you doubt your own mind, i.e. yourability to reason. In the case of the Koran, this means your abilityto read a book correctly.

Therefore they need to infuse waves of doubt and confusion overanyone trying to read to understand the Koran. “You are no Islamicscholar!” they will shout at you. “The Koran is so profound!” theycry. “It has so many commentaries and notes!” Don’t even bother toread it, you will not understand it.

Ladies and gentlemen, the Koran is not hard to read orunderstand. These are merely the hysterics of intellectual snobstrying to create an inferiority complex in you.

Notice that there is a double standard. If someone says the Koranis peaceful, it is taken as plain, simple fact, regardless that saidperson has usually never even read the Koran. But the person whochallenges Islam is held to the most excruciating of standards toprove themselves and their ability to judge the Koran. Unless youread the Koran in its original language, under a renowned scholar inMecca, they will announce you have no idea what you are talkingabout. Indeed, it is usually people who have never read the Koranwho are the most hysterical in these kinds of accusations.

When these methods of don’t work, they can always resort to adhominems: calling you an “idiot,” “moron,” etc simply for having the“incorrect” view. However, they don’t even have to do this anymore.Today, it is not just limited to a select few who want to insultyou: it is popularly accepted to call anyone who questions Islam a“bigot” or “ignorant.” People have been “educated” from birth thatto challenge Islam is evil. Nothing could be more anti-enlightened,anti-reason and downright destructive.

Islam apologists, including Muslims themselves, have gotten verygood at thwarting people from reading and understanding the Koran.They do so in the most effective way possible: by appealing to yourrespect for intelligence. Whenever you cite a verse in the Koran,without skipping a beat, they will cry that you, “Took the verse outof context.” This appeals to people’s sense of having a full,conceptual of understanding of any given thing. If you noticethough, they never actually put the verse in context. This is not anappeal to conceptual understanding, as it seems to be, but is usedto make you believe that somehow, someway, the verses around aparticular verse will change said verse’s identity. They will alsotell you whenever you quote a verse from a Koran that you have the“wrong translation.” On some level this appeals to people’s respectfor those who take the time to learn another language. But it isutterly ridiculous to think that only those people can judge theKoran: there are many, many translations of the Koran, all of whichsay essentially the same things. These are nothing but silly,awkward, and for some unknown reason - often effective - method ofcontrolling information as to control thought.

One would think if Muslims were so proud of their religion, theywould be encouraging people to read their holy text to prove itsrighteousness not thwarting people away from it at every step.People who are just want nothing more than for others to take agood, hard look at them - not generalizing them with others orbrushing them aside. An innocent person being charged with murder,for instance, will want and demand all the facts of the case to comeout, to shine as much light on the case as possible, and to beallowed to take the stand to make his or her case. The unjust personseeks to manipulate and deceive others, always trying to stop peoplefrom taking too hard of a look. For an example, see the lying,deceptive ways of any criminal.

So let’s do just that: shine pouring light onto the Koran to seewhat it is. We are going to give Islam what it frankly does notdeserve: the nicety of a trial.

In order to judge Islam, I did what most Islam apologists andmost Muslims (many of whom are illiterate) did not do: I read theKoran.

I find it interesting that interest in the Koran skyrocketedafter 9/11. But there are hardly any commentaries describing what isactually in the Koran.

Anyone who has ever sat down to read the Koran has my deepestsympathies. It is an extremely boring, mind-numbing and repetitivebook

The Koran is considered the written word of Muhammad’s teachings,who was inspired by the angel Gabriel. According to the introductionto the Koran I read in paper back, Muhammad was born into a poorfamily but lived in a wealthy city. He grew up without a father andended up marrying a rich widow (and then went on to have manydifferent wives, including at least one six-year-old girl). TheKoran was written down by others as he could not read nor write.

The Koran is broken up into “Suras,” which are like books in theBible or chapters in a book. There are 114 Suras and over 6100verses. The Suras range in size from as small as 4 verses to as manyas 286. For the most part, the larger Suras are at the beginning andthey get progressively smaller until the very short Suras at theend.

This is how the very beginning of the Koran starts out.

Sura 2:3-6, which falls on the first page of the Koran:

“And who believe in what hath been sent down to thee, and in whathath been sent down before thee, and full faith have they in thelife to come.

These are guided by their Lord; and with these it shall be well.

As to the infidels, alike is it to them whether thou warn them orwarm them not – they will not believe.

Their hearts and their ears hath God sealed up; and over theireyes is a covering. For them, a severe chastisement!”

The very beginning of the Koran starts out with stating thatnonbelievers are wrong, wrong, wrong and believers are good, good,good. It doesn’t say what the believers should do - there are noprinciples, values or morals laid out - just that non-believers arewrong.

It didn’t take long for me to be utterly shocked at what I readin the Koran:

"O our Lord! punish us not if we forget, or fall into sin; O ourLord! and lay not on us a load like that which thou has laid onthose who have been before us; O our Lord! and lay not on us thatfor which we have not strength: but blot out our sins and forgiveus, and have pity on us. Thou art our protector: give us victorytherefore over the infidel nations." Surah 2:286 (Bold mine)

This, quite frankly - is it! The Koran is nothing but one longvitriolic speech aimed at infidels: saying that they are dumb,blind, stupid, thankless, liars; that they will have boiling waterpoured on them; that they will be sent to hell where they will bechoked with food and without any friends; that Allah hates them; andalso loves those who fights against them

I wanted to be able to give you, my reader, some kind ofpercentage estimate of just how much the Koran deals with nothingbut infidels. I could give you an eyeballed estimation of how muchof it is nothing but hatred at infidels, but I would not expect youto take my word for it. Going through the Koran and summing up everysingle verse to get a percentage would be way too cumbersome.However, I thought of a way to get across to you, my reader, awarranted percentage: I could take a random sampling of verses fromthe Koran and make projections from there.

Now this is not some sort of literary review, not that the Koranis complex enough to warrant a literary review. I performed thestudy I did, at first, solely to get an accurate percentage topresent.

I originally did a small study. I wanted at least 30 samplesbecause statistically, so as long as there are 30 samples, thecentral limit theorem applies, i.e. the sampling is large enough tobe statistically significant. I tried to think of a fair way to picksamples. Had I gone through and just pointed to verses, I likelywould have gotten accused of cherry picking. So I took verse 10 fromrandomly chosen Suras. I did this to show I was not picking oneverse over another. I ended up with 34 verses. You can read theverses I took along with commentary regarding what context the verseis in, why I assigned it to the category I did and the calculationsof my confidence interval here.

I was really quite pleased with the results: I felt they provideda nice broad overview of the Koran and even captured one good verse!It also hit some of the bigger but smaller aspects of the Koran -the fact that it mentions Noah's Ark many times (where it gleefullydescribes how the infidels drowned); that it thinks infidels areutterly thankless; that Allah actually makes nonbelievers notbelieve, etc. These were the results

18/34 (52.9%) - over half - of these random verses is vitriolaimed at infidels.

6/34 (17.6%) Deal with Allah

5/34 (14.7%) Deal with believers

4/34 (11.8%) Deal with Day of Judgment or Day of Doom

1/34 (3.4%) ... is a good verse! (Do not steal from the poor /Give to the poor)

However, upon some contemplation I decided that my study could bedone better. Perhaps there might have been some bias by only pickingverse 10 from the verses. I took the verses from an online Koran (itwas easier to cut and paste quotes from an online source), and itwas an anti-Islamic site so perhaps there was some bias. (It turnsout there was not; the same translation is used by some pro-Islamicsites). I also felt there was at least one major theme that wasignored in my sampling: how Islam treats women. The confidenceinterval I ended up with was that one could be 95% confident thatthe percentage of hatred of infidels in the Koran was between 36.1%and 69.7%. That really is not very tight.

So I did a bigger study. This time I took it from a pro-Islamicsite. I wanted to have at least 200 samples. I tried to think of themost diplomatic way to take random verses. I could go in and takeevery 30th verse, giving me approximately 200 verses. But that wouldskip over several Suras as many of them only have 5 - 9 verses inthem. So I decided to give the verses a representation similar tothe way our founding fathers set up our Congress: every Sura (justlike every state) would be given a certain minimum representationand then larger Suras (just like larger states) would also have somekind of larger representation. So I took one verse from each Sura,thereby representing each Sura. I took the verse right in themiddle. That gave me 114 verses. I wanted about 86 more. So then Iwent through and took every 70th verse. This naturally gave thelarger Suras more of a representation. I ended up with 201 verses.

And, after hours of work, the results are in: they are exactlythe same. For the percentage I was most interested in, how much ofthe Koran is nothing but hatred at infidels, it was exactly at 53%.I was also quite happy that this sampling captured several versesabout women. The confidence interval was also much better this time:with 95% confidence, we can say the proportion is somewhere between45.8% and 59.6%. You can read the verses I took, my commentaries,and the calculation of the confidence intervalhere.

Here are the results of my larger study:

106/201 (52.7%) is hatred aimed at infidels, defined as

Threats towards infidels either in the after life or this life*Degrading infidels by calling them evil, stupid, blind, deaf,liars, thankless, etc.

Calls to fight against them.

Verses that say "except thebelievers" when wishing death on nonbelievers were counted as hatredsince avoiding death is not a positive to believers

The threat orinsult can be aimed at infidels in general or any specific infidel.

50/201 (24.9%) Deals with believers, defined as

Mentioning them

Saying they are righteous

Saying they will get good things

Any mentions of one of the prophets was snuck into this categorytoo

23/201 (11.4%) deal with Allah,

Who he is

That he is almighty

Any of his creations

10/201 (5%) deal with the Day of Doom or the Day of Judgment

Either the Day of Doom when destruction is sent on the earth or

Day of Judgment when all are judged before Allah

Any messagepertaining to how God records what men do was assigned this category

4/201 (2%) are anti-woman

That it’s OK to beat a woman

Womenand slaves get married off but have no choice in the matter and isvery self-serving to Muhammad or men in general.

4/201 (2%) deal with giving to the poor in some way

2/201 (1%) deal with some kind of Muslim custom or etiquette, forinstance

How to divorce your wife

1/201 (0.5%) disapproves of a man who murdered someone, but onlybecause it was for the wrong reason to kill someone.

1/201 (0.5%) actually says it is OK for people to have theirreligion while Muslims have theirs

Over 50% of the Koran deals with nothing but hatred aimed atinfidels. You will notice Allah is mentioned a lot, as well as thegoodness of believers and the Day of Doom/Judgment, the former beinga day when the Koran gleefully exclaims that Allah will senddestruction to the earth and destroy the infidels. Notice how muchof the Koran that deals with not just infidels but with the theme ofbelievers verses nonbelievers, setting up believers as holy,righteous, almost perfect human beings and nonbelievers not just aswrong but as wretched scum. If you add up the number of verses thatdeal with infidels, believers, Allah, and the Day of Judgment/Doom,that percentage is a full 94%. This is really the only thing in theKoran as the Koran itself readily admits: "... This book is no otherthan a warning and a clear Koran, To warn whoever liveth; and, thatagainst the Infidels sentence may be justly given." Sura 36:69-70

You may notice that details outlining Muslim customs andetiquette do not take up much room in the Koran. In fact, Ramadan,from what I can tell, is only mentioned once in the Koran. You cansee how seriously Muslims take Ramadan. Now imagine how seriouslythey take the rest of the 94% of the Koran.

There is no moral system outlined in the Koran - with theexception of allowing men to beat their wives, sleep with theirslaves, and there is an occasional, “give to the poor.” Therecertainly is no unequivocal “Do not kill”; “Do not steal”; or “Donot lie,” let alone any other insight into how to behave properly asa human being. Most of the “moral” guidance given in the Koran isnot a restraint on humans but permission to do what they want -mostly for men to do what they want.

The Koran is very self-serving to men and especially Muhammadwhen it comes to having access to women. It promises men youngvirgins in heaven with “supple breasts” and “large brown eyes,” butwhat about the women? Muhammad had up to fifteen wives at one time,but the rest of the believers were limited to four. Sura 66:1 showsnot only the self-serving nature of the Koran for Muhammad but theentire purpose of the Koran itself:

"Why,1 O Prophet! doest thou hold that to be FORBIDDEN which Godhath made lawful to thee, from a desire to please thy wives, sinceGod is Lenient, Merciful? " Sura 66:1

Note 1 from Sura 66 further clarifies this verse:

1 The first verses of this Sura were revealed on occasion ofMuhammad's reviving affection for Mary, a Copt slave sent him by thegovernor of Egypt from whom he had recently sworn to his wife Hafsato separate entirely. Hafsa, who had been greatly incensed at theiramour, of which Muhammad had himself informed her, communicated thematter in confidence to Ayesha, from whose altered manner, probably,the prophet found that his secret had been betrayed. To freeMuhammad from his obligation to Hafsa was the object of thischapter.

Muhammad had told his wife that he would stop having sex with aslave. However, he came back to tell her that he is allowed becauseAllah does not forbid it. Hence, to hell with her wishes!

Indeed, the Koran gives men full right to have sex with femaleslaves and their allotted four wives:

"It is not permitted thee to take other wives hereafter, nor tochange they present wives for other women, though their beauty charmthee, except slaves whom thy right hand shall possess. And Godwatcheth all things." Sura 33:52

Thus my charges of rape and slavery against Islam.

I propose the Koran is nothing but a rationalization: Muhammad’srationalization to do whatever he wants in the name of “religion.”

A verse in the Koran that needs no further comment:

"And we said, 'Take in thine hand a rod and strike15 with it, norbreak thine oath.' Verily, we found him patient!" - Sura 38:43

NOTE 15 IN SURA 38: "Thy wife; - on whom he had sworn that hewould inflict an hundred blows, because she had absented herselffrom him when in need of her assistance, or for her words (Jobii.9). The oath was kept, we are told, by his giving her one blowwith a rod of a hundred stalks. This passage is often quoted by theMuslims as authorising any similar manner of release from an oathinconsiderately taken."

The only arguable “good” verses in the Koran are commandments togive to the poor, which according to the study I did accounts forabout 2% of the Koran. Some may argue that giving to the poor is agood thing. Perhaps. But, in the Koran, it is couched insidecommandments of NOT getting wealthy.

"These are they who purchase this present life at the price ofthat which is to come: their torment shall not be lightened, neithershall they be helped." Sura 2:80

"Let not prosperity in the land on part of those who believe not,deceive thee. Tis but a brief enjoyment. Then shall Hell be theirabode, and wretched the bed!" Sura 3:196

"... What! prefer ye the life of this world to the next? But thefruition of this mundane life, in respect of that which is to come,is but little." Sura 9:38

And if this isn’t malicious enough, the Koran’s wish for peoplewho have wealth:

"Let not, therefore, their riches or their children amaze thee.God is only minded to punish them by these, in this life present,and that their souls may depart while they are unbelievers." Sura9:55 (Bold mine)

The Koran is hostile to any kind of wealth, pleasure or successon this earth. Even having children is considered a test from God ofwhere a Muslim’s loyalties lie. Man is meant to remain humble withonly modest earnings, pouring most of his earnings to the cause ofIslam. How can business, technology, art, music, or any other formof wealth or happiness develop out of this? Those who “purchase thispresent life” like this, according to Islam has done so at the priceof the afterlife. Given Muslims, Muslims who follow the Korananyway, are forbidden any pleasure while on this earth, death mustfeel like liberation to them

Thus my charge of creating poverty against Islam.

What has a tendency to shock most people about Islam and theKoran is its belief in predestination, which you may notice in thestudy I performed. Allow me to introduce you to one of the biggesttheological contradictions of all time. The Koran is filled withthreat after threat thrown at nonbelievers. And yet the Koran saysthat it is Allah who causes people to believe or not believe.

"He whom God guideth is the guided, and they whom he misleadethshall be the lost." Sura 7:177

"No soul can believe but by the permission of God: and he shalllay his wrath on those who will not understand." - Sura 10:100

"And they who believe not say, 'Unless a sign be sent down to himfrom his Lord ...' SAY: God truly will mislead whom he will; and Hewill guide to Himself him who turneth to Him,” Sura 13:27

"Had God pleased, He could have made you one people: but Hecauseth whom He will to err, and whom He will He guideth: and yeshall assuredly be called to account for your doings." Sura 16:95

So, if God and God only can cause people to not believe, then whyall the threats? What good will they do? Whose fault is it that theyare nonbelievers and why should they be punished for something outof their control? (I argued that the Koran had an identity, i.e. aspecific meaning; I never promised it would make sense.)

Imagine you are a Muslim and want more than anything to be a goodMuslim and to get into heaven. How do you know that Allah will pickyou to be one that he will guide? Every person, according to Islam,has no control over his fate but rather is at the mercy of Allah’swhim.

This belief in predestination is not just mysticism; it is muchworse. Not only do men gain knowledge through faith only; it is onlysome men (and the Koran says only a few men) are privy to suchknowledge. And now the most pressing question: if all the world isto be Muslim, as the Koran commands, but people cannot be converted,how can that happen? There is only one way.

Almost the entire Koran is dedicated to delegating to infidels aninferior status. They are called blind, stupid and ignorant. Noproof is given of why they should believe; Muhammad performed nomiracles for people. When some skeptics asked for proof, theresponse was:

"And when ye said, 'O Moses! we will not believe thee until wesee God plainly;' the thunderbolt fell upon you while ye werelooking on:" Sura 2:52

Infidels are accused of being thankless. The Koran says infidelspromise that they will believe in God if God relieves them of theiraffliction, but when God does, they forget him. Infidels mock theprophets when they come to give their message to them. All of thissets up for what the Koran, at heart, is: one long battle cryagainst infidels.

I find it interesting that the Koran is not in chronologicalorder. It was re-arranged, and interestingly enough, most of thedownright violent Suras were put at the beginning.

"Is it not proved to those who inherit this land after itsancient occupants, that if we please we can smite them for theirsins, and put a seal upon their hearts, that they hearken not?” Sura7:98

“Say to the infidels: If they desist from their unbelief, what isnow past shall be forgiven them, but if they return to it, they havealready before them the doom of the ancients! Fight then againstthem till strife be at an end, and the religion be all of it God's…" - Sura 8:39-40

"And when the sacred months are passed, kill those who join othergods with God wherever ye shall find them; and seize them, besiegethem, and lay wait for them with every kind of ambush: but if theyshall convert, and observe prayer, and pay the obligatory alms, thenlet them go their way, for God is Gracious, Merciful." Sura 9:5

Yes, this is straight from the Holy Book of the religion thatgets called a “Religion of Peace.”

Muslims are commanded to fight. Only the weak are excused.

"It shall be no crime on the part of the blind, the lame, or thesick, if they go not to the fight. But whoso shall obey God and HisApostle, He shall bring him into the gardens 'neath which the riversflow: but whoso shall turn back, He will punish him with a sorepunishment." Sura 48:17

After fighting, believers have a right to the infidel’s houses.

“And He made you heirs to their land and their dwellings andtheir property, and (to) a land which you have not yet trodden, andAllah has power over all things.” Sura 33:27

Thus my charge of oppression against Islam.

The Koran is clear on when fighting can stop. Some may say thatthe Koran says fighting can stop once “peace” is made, which is howthe following is watered down in some translations:

"Yet if they turn to God and observe prayer, and pay the impost,then are they your brethren in religion. We make clear our signs tothose who understand." "But if, after alliance made, they breaktheir oaths and revile your religion, then do battle with thering-leaders of infidelity - for no oaths are binding with them -that they may desist." Sura 9:11-12

Muslims are taught to wage war on nonbelievers. It is written inplain language. Muslims are to fight until nonbelievers convert orpay alms. All else are to be killed. Ladies and gentlemen, thus mycharge of terrorism against Islam.

Let me remind you of the September 11, 2001 attacks. Along withthe Pentagon (and another plane which never made its destination ofthe White House as some courageous heroes took it down before itcould get there), the Islamic terrorists targeted the twin towers ofthe World Trade Center: symbols of American wealth and prosperity.

"And when we willed to destroy a city, to its affluent ones didwe address our bidding: but when they acted criminally therein, justwas its doom, and we destroyed it with an utter destruction" - Sura17:17 (Bold mine)

"We will not burden a soul beyond its power: and with us is abook, which speaketh the truth; and they shall not be wronged: Butas to this Book, their hearts are plunged in error, and their worksare far other than those of Muslims, and they will work those works,Until when we lay hold on their affluent ones with punishment; lo!they cry for help:" Sura 23:64-66 (Bold mine)

I will remind you the reason why the terrorists were willing tokill themselves to kill Americans: they were promised 72 virgins inheaven.

"But, for the God-fearing is a blissful abode, Enclosed gardensand vineyards; And damsels with swelling breasts, their peers inage." Sura 78:31-33

"But the pious shall be in a secure place, Amid gardens andfountains, Clothed in silk and richest robes, facing one another:Thus shall it be: and we will wed them to the virgins with largedark eyes." Sura 44:51-54

The terrorists who attacked us on September 11, 2001 did not doso in the name of their country or for any demand, such as money orland: they did it openly and proudly in the name of Islam. They werenot misguided; they were in every way Islamic.

The very last Suras in the Koran are very short and riddled withcries about the evilness of infidels. Even as I read them, I couldfeel the burning hatred of infidels that one is meant to feel afterreading them. These ending Suras can be considered chants - short,quick, hysterical chants - against infidels.

Some will insist that my verses were totally lifted out ofcontext. This argument does not have much merit. As you can tellfrom my study, the “context” of just about all verses in the Koranis a sea of hatred. It is in fact the Islam apologists who do notput things in context. Islam apologists comb the Koran for any andall “good” quotes and take it as proof that the Koran is peaceful.For instance, there is a quote in the Koran which says Muslims canhave their religion and other people can have theirs. This may seemgood until you realize that, in the Koran, it says other religionsmay exist with Muslims, but they are to live as second classcitizens, paying taxes to Muslims.

The other argument usually given is that the Koran does call forviolence but only in self-defense. In some translations of theKoran, the phrase “in case of war” or “in case the infidels attackyou” is conveniently placed in all calls for violence. This reallyis nothing more than a blatantly misleading lie. Muslims who saythis are taking advantage of taqiyya (or taqiyah), an allowance forMuslims to lie. While taqiyya can mean that if a Muslim feels hislife is in danger he can lie; it can also mean a permission to liein general. According to fact-index.com, taqiyya can essentiallymean that, “[A] Muslim is allowed to say untruths to a non-Muslim ifin their heart they still respect the truths that they externallydeny.”

I have noticed Muslims downright lying through their teeth inpublic about true Islam. It is frustrating and flabbergasting.However, knowing about taqiyya brings it full circle that they arein fact lying. But I often wondered: why? If they really areinterested in destroying America (and when you dig deeper mostMuslim fundamentalists, especially ones willing to lie for Islam,are), why would they lie to opponents? Why do they care what theirenemies think? But I believe I figured it out: it is like an enemyfighter who waves a white flag, insisting they are peaceful, causingyou to drop your weapons, then opens fire.

However, even so, let’s assume it was true that the Koran callsfor violence only in self-defense. Why does it put it in suchblatantly collectivist terms? Why is it one group, Muslims, onlyallowed to defend themselves against another group, infidels?

The fact is, all hate movements have been marked by this samething: victimology and collectivism. They convince themselves thatthey are a victimized, oppressed group of another group - that theyare being attacked or held down by another group - then launch awar. It is never specific people who have been hurt by otherspecific people, but by a broad, generic group of "Jews" or"bourgeois" or "nonbelievers."

The Koran is not very unequivocal in stating that enemies aspeople who threaten your life. Infidels, according to the Koran, areby definition enemies.

“And when ye go forth to war in the land, it shall be no crime inyou to cut short your prayers, if ye fear lest the infidels comeupon you; Verily, the infidels are your undoubted enemies!” Sura4:102 (Bold mine.)

“They (the polytheists) sell the signs of God for a mean price,and turn others aside from his way: evil is it that they do! They regard not in a believer either ties of blood or faith;these are the transgressors!” Sura 9:9-10 (Bold mine.)

I asked a Muslim once about Muhammad. Muhammad was obviously awarlord - apparently the very first Islamic terrorist to hijack theIslam religion. This man I talked to insisted that that Islam was areligion that advocated violence only in self-defense. I asked himif Muhammad fought in self-defense or in aggression. He answered,“both.” So I asked him why Muhammad fought in aggression, perhaps itwas a pre-emptive strike against enemies about to strike. And, if itwas a pre-emptive strike, I asked him if Muhammad had significantintelligence data to suggest that “enemy” nations were about toattack him. He told me that Allah “in his infinite wisdom” toldMuhammad that these people were his enemies.

This is the problem with Islam and this is the problem with blindfaith. There are no prescribed rules for who is an enemy and who isnot. Whoever is perceived to be an enemy is an enemy.

Everything about Islam prepares its people to be fighters. Itriles them with hatred. It prods them to fight. Even the “holidays”in Islam trains fighters. Take for instance Ramadan. Instead offeasting and celebrating, Muslims are to sacrifice during thedaylight hours for a month. I propose that this is an effective wayto train its followers for war. Besides the practical ability to gowithout food for extended amounts of times, it trains people toaccept a tough life. The only place you will see this kind ofbehavior in America is for various types of military training.

This isn’t a matter of clamoring over a few verses or of decidingwhether or not some verses contradict other verses in the Koran.This is about the fundamental theme of the Koran, which is: burninghatred of infidels and wishes of death and destruction for them. AnyMuslim who picks up the Koran and takes it seriously will at thevery least believe infidels are evil and deserving of death. Islamis a fighting ideology with an uncanny hatred for those who don’tbelieve as they do. But don’t take my word for it. Please, by allmeans, read the Koran for yourself.

Many people, naןve to Islam, will point to the fact that thereare 1.3 billion Muslims in the world and not all of them becometerrorists. True, they do not. The problem is not the regular peoplebut the leaders. Most people, anywhere, just accept the majorphilosophy/religion of their time and usually do not follow or takeit very seriously. Observe that it isn’t the poor or ignorant whotypically become terrorists but the rich and educated, i.e. the oneswho are capable of understanding the Koran and have the means toimplement what it says. This is about what Islam is as an ideologyand what the ramifications will be when adopted.

My detractors might give some other reasons for why terrorism iscreated. Typically, many assign the cause of terrorism to some petcause that they have. Feminists blame the “patriarchy”. Socialistsblame it on “poverty.” These are obviously grounded not in realitybut ideology. They are not honest evaluations; they would rathercontinue grinding their axe against men, the wealthy, whoever it isthey hate. Blaming it on “poverty” is particularly sneaky. It issimply not true; most terrorists are middle class if not filthyrich. When the religious fundamentalists are poor, they do not havethe means to fight. It is when they became wealthy, recently mostlyfrom oil money, that they can launch bigger, more effective attacks.Blaming it on poverty is sneaky: it suggests the solution is to pourmore money - more money to go to jihad - into their hands. Indeed,what we need is the exact opposite: we need to starve them of allresources, especially financial ones.

Some try to argue that Islam has produced scientific achievementsin the past. Most people tend to attribute the invention of Algebrato Muslims. But it was not Muslims or even Arabs that discoveredAlgebra: it was the Iranians. The Iranians have a rich history ofenlightenment and are more influenced by their heritage, which isone that emphasizes education and scholarship, than religion.Another person some point to is a man named Razi, who madeadvancements in medicine, as evidence of Muslim accomplishment. ButRazi was not an Arab or a Muslim but again an Iranian. In fact, hewas so hostile to Islam that he wrote several books denouncing faithand upholding reason and had to live as a heretic. Razi was to theMuslim world what Galileo or Copernicus was to ours.

It should be obvious to Western people: faith, mysticism andreligion are antagonistic to science, reason and progress. We caneasily see how Christianity was responsible for The Dark Ages butrefuse to see how Islam is responsible for the violence andprimitive life in the Middle East. Islam cannot even uphold a decentsociety let alone a prosperous one. Progress is not some kind ofgift from the heavens. If you look at all successful societies, youwill see the influence of one man: Aristotle. Progress requires acommitment to reason. The only way for peace or stability to come tothe Middle East is for Islam to leave and Enlightenment to reign.

One would think that “liberals” would be the first to condemnIslam. It is the polar opposite of all of their stated values andthey have a tendency to think they are enlightened. But, eerilyenough, they almost seem to side with Islam; although they go afterChristianity with an unusual tenacity. This seems odd, since Islamis by far a more faith-based and hateful religion than Christianity.And, while I disagree with Christianity, it upholds at least adecent, stable moral framework for people to co-exist peacefully.Islam does not. The fact that liberals speak out againstChristianity, allegedly in the name of reason, but not Islam showsthat the left is not anti-faith but anti-values. If you notice,leftists didn’t embrace Islam until they realized its potential forterrorism. This speaks volumes.

Even if we take down every Islamic dictatorship in existence nowthat harbors and finances terrorists, so as long as this malignantideology is around, it will inspire its followers to pick up andfight infidels. We attempted to fight communism militarily, fightingaggressive communist nations and arming ourselves up to our armpits,to fail. For over a half of a century we refused to call communismitself evil. Then, in the 1980s, Ronald Reagan was willing to stepup to the plate and challenge communism ideologically. Communismcame tumbling down with hardly a fire shot. Like with Islam, fordecades we were told it was “bad people” running the communistcountries that was the problem. It was not; like with Islam, theproblem is the ideology. I am however more hopeful that people willcall Islam evil, and sooner, as if people can see how communism,which comes in the package of equality and peace, is an evilideology; they can certainly see how Islam is evil.

Never underestimate the power of a simple, consistent, moralargument against the ideology of our enemies. If we are going tofight terrorism, we need to fight the ideology that inspiresterrorism. As far as those hysterical people who say thatchallenging Islam is akin to starting a mass genocide: fighting -and winning - in the realm of ideas is a far more humane andpeaceful way to end threats to our lives and nation.

Most seem to believe that Islam needs to be “secularized” forpeace and freedom to come to the Middle East. Frankly, this is justa politically correct way to say Islam is the problem. Whether youbelieve Islam has to be “secularized” or eradicated, the simple factremains that Islam is the problem. Until we are willing to prosecuteIslam as a violent religion: our war on terror will never end.

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

Islamo Arab fascism: For Arabs only, For Muslims only & Anti-Israel as an integral part of it

Islamo Arab fascism: For Arabs only, For Muslims only & Anti-Israel as an integral part of it

FOREIGN FIGHTERS IN IRAQ

Have you ever wondered what drives a Saudi, Jordanian, 'Palestinian' to come over to a completely foreign country: Iraq to 'fight the infidel' US/UK?

After all they don't fight for 'their country' at all?What's the special bond then?The intolerance of Jihad, or more powerful the twin evil of Arab racism & Islamic Jihad, if you are a non Arab, a non-Muslim, you 'don't belong here', They are saying: '(No matter where we were born) We are here in our land', the middle east is ours, and ONLY ours.

WHAT DO AL-QAEDA, HAMAS, HEZBOLLAH REFER TO WHEN MENTIONING 'FREEDOM FIGTHING'?

Their 'freedom fighting' now takes a whole new diabolical meaning, doesn't it? How about 'free from the other race/religion/creed'? but it's actually quite old, ancient bigotry.

The pure facts of Arabs not wanting non Arabs, Muslims not wanting non Muslims, especially in their neighborhood, A.K.A. The Middle East.

Why else would major Arab countries unify to destroy Israel since it's inception & the same time persecute the Arab 'Palestinians' living among them?

Trust me, as much as the myth of 'Arab unity' is in the west, you wouldn't want to be a 'Palestinian' Arab in Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Kuwait, you name it.

Let's not kid ourselves for one moment the fact and the reason why none of the Arab Muslim leaders ever wanted sincerely for a 'Palestinian' solution, 1) anti Israel galvanizing power among Arab populous is far of a great asset to their oppressive regimes on their resentful citizens, 2) It makes sure their bigoted anti-Israel campaign goes on 'without end', until even westerners can admit to 'Palestinian' misery.

Arab leaders knew/know full well that most grandfathers of today's 'Palestinian Arabs are no natives to Israel, the holy-land, of course they immigrated from other Arab countries.But, you get the point, they are Arabs, they are Muslims, therefor they belong in all of the middle east, the Arab Muslim (fascism) land.

That's also why Jews have to give up part or all of it's land to the Arabs, even though Jews were there first historically, but, yes, again, they are not Arabs, they are not Muslims.

The Islamic Republic of Iran that is not even a neighbor of Israel's has nothing against Israel BUT the problem with 'It being amidst Muslim land'.

Though the slow driving out of the Christian Arabs started off by the Arab Egyptian turned 'Palestinian' (somehow), Yassir Arafat, & continued by current 'Palestinian' Islamfscism-Hamas, anti-Christian is still not as powerful, no match to the fire motivatred by the added fuel of Arab racism, the added anti Jewish push.

Speaking of Arafat, you'd wonder How come an Egyptian could have been/become the most classical (so called) 'Palestinian' icon, again, there's no contradiction, an Arab is an Arab, a Muslim is a Muslim, the middle east is pure Arab, pure Muslim, remember?

Arab racism is actually also tide much to Islamic radicalism, it's nationalism is always fueled & glorified by the 'cult{ure} of radical Islam', even Iraq's Saddam & Syria's Asad, supposedly some seculars in their private practice, resorted to Islamic inspiration in their horrendous crimes against humanity, on their own people & fascistically on minirities.

Long before the disappointment in US at the ugly ungrateful reaction by Iraqis' after being freed from Saddam, Israel learned it the hard way, in the early 1980's when being attacked by PLO terrorists from Lebanon, entered Lebanon as liberators from the jungle the 'Palestinians' have left Lebanese to deal with, hard to believe, but the Shiite Muslims actually threw flowers at the Israeli heroes, but as soon as they prolonged their stay, they were attacked by the very Lebanese Muslims, brutally.The message was clear: OK, Thank you but good bye, Bush didn't hear that, it seems, or he was kidding himself that the excitement would take a long time, answer: deeply rooted Arab racism & Islamic facsiom for the "OTHER", is far greater than any obligated gratitude.Don't get me wrong, I am not against trying to 'win their hearts/minds', even [in reality it can not surpass] for just a limited success, but I am against illusions that it might simply take away their fascist motivation against us, against the other.

THEIR CORE INTOLERANCE IS NOT IN OUR HANDS

Think, western leaders!Think really hard, that they're simply NOT ABLE to like us,we don't belong in their neighborhood, that's simply how they're raised, leave aside the anti-colonialism revolt that has swept that world, there is a totally other factor, the fascism mentioned, no matter if you are a French in Algeria/Morocco, an American, Englishman in Afghanistan/Iraq, Swiss tourists in Egypt, ANY Westerner in the 'Palestinian' West bank, etc. (all of the above have been attacked by Islamists).

And as long as the west won't GET IT we'll keep on living in false imaginations & endless self-examinations of 'how they might like us', here's a short answer for you:They hate us (because of their bigotry, if our policies inflate this already factor, that's already an entire different discussion), but they hate us even more when we are so close to them.

'Keep your friends close & your enemies closer', is way too sweet for their despicable bitterness, a bitterness yet so hypocritically masked as 'holy'.

Most Arabs are so racist, most Muslims are so intolerant, they just can't bring themselves to be grateful to the US for rescuing Iraqi Arab men, women & children from the butcher & torturer of Baghdad: Saddam Hussein.

There was not one shred of gratitude from any known Muslim leader or group for US & Europe's rescuing of Bosnian Muslims in the 1990's. anti west is still going strong instead

There was not one declaration of thank you from any known Muslim leader or organization for US saving of Somali Muslims in the 1990's. but on the contrary, their hatred only grew.

Did one [mainstream] single Muslim cleric come up and say that the Koranic term [reminder, only Islamists kill, torture in the name of religion & book] 'apes & pigs', the Islamists call the non Muslims, are not to be followed?

While [not only most Jews or even most Israelis, but even] most Zionist Jews sympathize with Arab 'Palestinian' fallen unintentionally in the war on terror, but almost all Arabs & Muslims demonize Israeli victims of intentional Arab-Muslims violent crimes against humanity.

While Arabs live in Israel not only just better & more free [women voting, real free speech, etc.] than in all of their own regimes, but treated often as first class citizens ahead of Israeli Jews (courts, land issues, etc.), Jews, however, are either not allowed to live in certain Arab countries [apartheid, ethnic cleansing, etc. Syria even denies any entry for a Jew,] or persecuted in most Arab countries.

Which Arab Muslim nation is exempt of the epidemic of criminal 'honor killing'?

If Pro terror Muslim organizations like CAIR [ http://anti-cair-net.org ] is defined as "moderate", what would one call their mainstream?

Roughly 90% of Arabs polled, have a negative view on all Jews [not just being 'anti-Zionism', whatever that means], even in such [so called 'moderate'] countries like: Jordan.

"White" Hitler's 'MeinKampf' is translated into Arabic, available on the "brown" Arab market, what for?

What's the interest in "brown" Arab nations' inviting "white" KKK members to speak?

Do you know of any Muslim group that has joined the efforts of Christian/Jewish action to prevent the racist genocide by Arab Muslims in Sudan upon native black Muslims?

Has any Arab media issued an apology for inciting the bloody "intifada" [2000] via lying images, such as of Muhammad Al dura, which as we all know by now, was killed by Arabs themselves [who knows how many more]? or has anyone of them run the true version of stories?

Which Arab, Muslim nation is exempt from the crime of libel against Israel's struggle for survival with outrageous drama "accusations" & horrific twisted around definitions in the UN [reaching it's peak with their racist resolution in Durban - 2000, hypocritically calling it "against racism"]?

How many Arabs, Muslims, have declared openly that the 'Palestinian' Arab Muslim cult of using it's kids as human bombs and as human shields in their war against Israeli civilians, is totally immoral?

Not one Muslim group has come up against and declared that a collective boycott of an entire nation such as Denmark (2006, because they were upset with a few cartoonists that happened to be Danes) is racism.

While most Arab, most Muslims couldn't care less what happens with the [so called] "Palestinian" Arab Muslims, they do use them as pawns in their fascist war [physical, propaganda, economic & in the UN] against the non Arab, non Muslim "island" in their neighborhood, i.e. Israel.

While Arab, Muslims leaders chased out, in 1948, most of the [so called] "Palestinian" refugees, with bragging "promises" of "victory" & ethnic cleansing the Jews out of Israel, they put them in camps, never let Israel to improve their conditions, so to use them as pawns in their fascist war against the non Arab, non Muslim "island" in their neighborhood, i.e. Israel.

Most Arab Muslim media draws Israel so vile, as in the WWII type of Nazi cartoon drive [the other unfunny ironic part is, they pick the non-Zionist Jew image, hypocrisy, again, fascism, again].

Most Muslims wishwash the facsistic Muslims' torture and cold blooded murder of innocent people that just happened to be Jewish, like: Daniel Pearl, Nick Berg, Ilan Halimi.

Did you hear one mainstream Arab Muslim leader or groups denuncing the Islamic Hitler of Iran's calls for annihilation of an entire nation, calling for a new Holocaust while denying the previous one and his calls for death to: US & the UK? [PS, he just made a tour (May-2006) among "moderate" Muslim nations that only cheered him on.
]

Exactly How many Muslims or Muslim organizations [that are so worry about their image or of their 'prophet's] have protested against the masses of Muslims on the 'Cartoon -Jihad' rampage (2006), calling Europe a cancer and threatening a "9/11" on Europe?

Not one of the few courageous Muslims that speak out for real overall reform, for disliking westerners, for sympathy for Israel the victim, for about [all] Muslims regimes' crimes on their own people, have been shielded from any major Muslim organization (including such as CAIR - http://anti-cair-net.org), from the menace of death threats Fatwas by Muslim clerics.

Disclaimer : Do not use this blog to call for any violence, to troll, or to post warez/porn.
If you are found to be abusing these rules (which can be updated at any time),
your posts will be removed from this site without warning. note -
I cannot be held responsible for anything written on this page that you disagree with.
If you don't like it, go somewhere else.